Error on Ballot

As I have stated in the other 2 threads you have commented on this in you never accepted or self nominated yourself.
 
The post apparently was deleted.

Do I wait until after the election to show proof or do I just file a FOIA for administrative logs on that thread?
 
Well the only people who can delete posts on the forums are Admins. I do not believe you are able to use the FOIA law for admin actions. I would suggest you try. I nor to my knowledge did the other EC's see your post.
 
Also, NOWHERE in the Constitution nor the Legal Code, does it even require a candidate to post an acceptance in a 'nomination thread'.

If the Election Commissioners have the authority to arbitrarily and capriciously require that of candidates who have openly declared their candidacy via an election campaign thread, then they have the authority to arbitrarily and capriciously deny a legally qualified candidate from getting on the ballot as they so wish.

Please not the following:

Section 4.2: Election Law Definitions
4. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes.
5. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.
6. "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to supervise a given election. No one who may be a candidate in an election may serve as an Election Commissioner during it.
7. "Election Cycle" is defined as the period of time that begins on the first day on which nominations, or a declaration, of candidacy are made and concludes with the final declaration of results for an election. The dates for the Election Cycle will be designated at least 30 days in advance by the Delegate .
8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Vacancies of elected offices are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the appropriate scheduled election cycle. Pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body. Vacancies of appointed positions may be filled in accordance with proper appointment procedures.

Section 4.3: Overall Election Law
9. In General and Judicial elections, Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the nomination and election processes at least one week before the month in which the election begins. If an appointment of Election Commissioners has not been made by that time, the Chief Justice shall promptly make the appointment within 48 hours.
10. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy shall last for seven days.
11. Voting will begin three days after the period for nominations or declarations has closed and last for seven days.
12. If a run-off vote is required it will begin within two days of the first vote ending and it shall last for five days.

Section 4.4: General Elections
13. The election cycle for the terms of the Delegate and Vice Delegate, and of the Speaker, will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
14. Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate or Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council under Chapter 5.
Click to expand...

Viz. the TNP Constitution:

Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote.
5. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive offices may be regulated by law.
6. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
7. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds the Vice Delegate’s endorsement count.
8. If the Delegate is removed or unable to serve, the Vice Delegate will assume the duties of the Delegate. If the Vice Delegate is also unable to serve, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the Delegate.
9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, it is withing the scope of the Election Commissioners to decide which legally qualified candidates can get on the ballot, for whatever arbitrary reason they so choose, if they make such a rule off-hand for whatever reason?

I certainly hope this is not so because it would cast suspicion on the validity of any election.
 
I now have three witnesses who have publicly posted on #TNP in the public channel, which can be posted on this forum, who can testify to the fact that I self nominated appropriately.

And I will publish it if needs be in no one has seen it yet.
 
Posted from public #TNP Channel with permission (I was polite enough to ask even though no permission was requires, as a point of personal honor):

[22:26]KarpathosI definitely remember your self-nomination Romanoffia
[22:26]Funkadelia^
[22:27]RomanoffiaThere you go.
[22:27]RomanoffiaThree witnesses.
[22:27]KarpathosI'm willing to testify
[22:27]KarpathosIf that's needed
[22:29]RomanoffiaAnd there we have it.
[22:32]IP log deleted
[22:32]IP log deleted
[22:32]RomanoffiaDespite being a public channel, I will be honorable and polite to ask Karpathos and Funkadelia if I can post on the TNP Forum their last few items (from 22:26 on)?
[22:32]KarpathosOf course
[22:33]RomanoffiaFunkadelia?
[22:34]FunkadeliaYes.
Click to expand...
 
I have been through the moderator logs for every moderator on the forum. No posts have been deleted by any moderator from the nomination thread.

The only other possibilities are poster self-deletion or an error in posting.
 
I, too, have reviewed the logs. There is no log entry for any moderator action this month that could have resulted in the removal of a post by Romanoffia in the nominations topic.

Edit: Also, in none of the 9 versions with Romanoffia listed as nominated for Vice Delegate of the OP of the nominations topic is he listed as having accepted his nomination.

Edit2:

Here's a table of information about the versions of the OP:

Time[c]Last touched by[c]Romanoffia listed as Nominated[c]Romanoffia listed as Accepted[c]Apr 30 2013, 01:26 AM GMT[c]Lord Ravenclaw[c]No[c]No[c]May 1 2013, 03:02 PM GMT[c]Lord Ravenclaw[c]No[c]No[c]May 1 2013, 03:04 PM GMT[c]Lord Ravenclaw[c]No[c]No[c]May 1 2013, 04:57 PM GMT[c]Lord Ravenclaw[c]No[c]No[c]May 1 2013, 05:55 PM GMT[c]Hileville[c]No[c]No[c]May 1 2013, 05:55 PM GMT[c]Hileville[c]No[c]No[c]May 1 2013, 05:56 PM GMT[c]Hileville[c]No[c]No[c]May 1 2013, 06:01 PM GMT[c]Lord Ravenclaw[c]No[c]No[c]May 1 2013, 07:03 PM GMT[c]Lord Ravenclaw[c]Yes[c]No[c]May 1 2013, 09:10 PM GMT[c]Hileville[c]Yes[c]No[c]May 2 2013, 03:14 PM GMT[c]Lord Ravenclaw[c]Yes[c]No[c]May 2 2013, 03:42 PM GMT[c]Lord Ravenclaw[c]Yes[c]No[c]May 2 2013, 05:18 PM GMT[c]Hileville[c]Yes[c]No[c]May 2 2013, 05:20 PM GMT[c]Hileville[c]Yes[c]No[c]May 3 2013, 10:55 PM GMT[c]Hileville[c]Yes[c]No[c]May 4 2013, 02:59 PM GMT[c]Lord Ravenclaw[c]Yes[c]No[c]May 5 2013, 03:56 PM GMT[c]Eluvatar[c]Yes[c]No
 
So he wasn't listed as a candidate because he didn't accept his self-nomination? Seriously now? Splitting hairs, aren't we?
 
As seen here, Romanoffia has made no posts in the nominations topic. He was nominated by Chasmanthe who then withdrew that nomination. It seems that the Election Commission made an error in failing to remove Romanoffia from the list of persons nominated for Vice Delegate and failing to add him to the list of persons nominated for Delegate. <_<
 
I think the EC can decide to do the right thing no matter what the court has to say about it. The EC knew Roman was running a campaign. As they ALL updated the nomination status at one time or another, they had to see there was a blank next to his name. If it were such a critical requirement, you'd think at least one of the ECs would have given Roman a nudge. But of course, there is no law requiring folks to be decent to one another.

And Chas' withdrawal of his nomination brings up another point. Wouldn't it be possible for someone to nominate a rival then withdraw it at the last minute, thereby preventing competition on the ballot? I'm actually seeing lots of ways a politician could play with the rules and trip up an opponent in red tape.

Finally, there have been arguments that since it was Roman, who has run in many elections before, he should have known how to dot all the teas and cross all the eyes. For me, this raises a larger question: if old-timers are challenged by the system, how hard is it for newer players to navigate it?
 
I think that we'd understand acceptance of a nomination to also function as declaration of candidacy.

I don't know how challenging the system is, per se. Until now, no one has campaigned without getting on the ballot, at least in a long while.
 
Yeah, there was a newcomer last year who didn't get put on the ballot. I forget his name, and he is no longer with us. Maybe Hileville remembers.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Yeah, there was a newcomer last year who didn't get put on the ballot. I forget his name, and he is no longer with us. Maybe Hileville remembers.
Click to expand...
The only person I remember last year was someone who wasn't an RA member for 15 days. I can't think of their name though.
 
Now I'm curious....

Sooo I looked it up and it was James Martin. You said his omission was an oversight and then you placed him on the ballot.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I think the EC can decide to do the right thing no matter what the court has to say about it. The EC knew Roman was running a campaign. As they ALL updated the nomination status at one time or another, they had to see there was a blank next to his name. If it were such a critical requirement, you'd think at least one of the ECs would have given Roman a nudge. But of course, there is no law requiring folks to be decent to one another.

And Chas' withdrawal of his nomination brings up another point. Wouldn't it be possible for someone to nominate a rival then withdraw it at the last minute, thereby preventing competition on the ballot? I'm actually seeing lots of ways a politician could play with the rules and trip up an opponent in red tape.

Finally, there have been arguments that since it was Roman, who has run in many elections before, he should have known how to dot all the teas and cross all the eyes. For me, this raises a larger question: if old-timers are challenged by the system, how hard is it for newer players to navigate it?
Click to expand...
Which brings up another point - how many items of bureaucratic minutiae result in convoluted and often Byzantine practices that are taken as 'law' yet which do not appear in the law, and those practices often being in direct conflict of the Constitution and written Legal code?

While it can be argued that the EC has the authority to determine certain rules and procedures, why is it that no one questions why the EC rules don't have to be recorded and published for all to see (as is in the RA 'house rules')? How can anyone, including the candidates be expected to know what the rules are if those rules are nowhere written down? Clearly, candidates are expected to be mind-readers concerning what the EC rules actually are and then be expected to shut up and go away even if those unwritten and fluid rules are in conflict with the Constitution and Legal Code.

This whole matter goes beyond a simple election and which invisible and unwritten rules there are - it is a matter of whether or not such unwritten rules can trump The Constitution and Legal Code. If such 'rules' can do so, then the Constitution and every right and privilege it is designed to protect is meaningless and due process and civil liberty become just meaningless terms there just for show. I fear this may indeed be becoming the rule of the day and is evidenced by the fact that more often than not anyone who brings up questions of legality and constitutionality are immediately marginalized and the issue is trivialized.

No issue concerning the Constitution nor anyone who questions 'tradition' should be marginalized and trivialized. Doing so just makes a joke of the whole system and brings it all down a notch or two towards complete decadence and decay.

The Constitution is the ultimate foundation of this region's government and the first plank in the floor above it is elections. If if those elections become an arbitrary process determined by arbitrary and unwritten 'rules' and 'traditions' that can determine whether or not a person can stand for office, and who otherwise has met all Constitutional and Legal requirements, then such a Constitution and Legal code become meaningless. And that is how democracies and republics die - they become crushed under the weight of their own 'tradition' and unwritten 'rules' which cause them to become dysfunctional. And anyone who has been in the region knows exactly how many times before this has happened right here.

It must be remembered, that the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional is the People. No matter what decisions are made or what laws are written, it is the people who will eventually decide and pushed far enough, will work to abolish and change such 'traditions' as it is their right and duty to do.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Now I'm curious....

Sooo I looked it up and it was James Martin. You said his omission was an oversight and then you placed him on the ballot.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't remember the circumstances around that. Without looking since you already did, did he state his declaration of candidacy in the nominations thread?
 
Yes, he did. When the voting opened he was not on the ballot. I PM'd you and asked if there was a problem with his candidacy. You told me it was an oversight and you corrected the ballot, adding his name.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Yes, he did. When the voting opened he was not on the ballot. I PM'd you and asked if there was a problem with his candidacy. You told me it was an oversight and you corrected the ballot, adding his name.
Click to expand...
Ah. I vaguely remember now. So much has happened since I joined TNP it seems like I have been here for years and stuff just kinda blurs together when in reality I have only been here for a little more than a year.
 
Just wait til you've been here nine years, then things really get mixed up. But that incident with James, it was really no big deal. He was brand-new, so he was never going to be elected delegate in that election anyway. He was so new, he probably couldn't even find his way to the courthouse to complain about it. Anyway, there was a problem and you fixed it right away, no harm done.

It was some time after that when another error occurred on a ballot - I can't recall who was running - and the issue wound up in the courts. The question being, is it ok to simply correct a mistake on the ballot, or should there be a do-over? As Chief Justice, you opined that the election should be restarted. Then whoever it was, court order in hand, got his election restarted.

So now, instead of just being able to add Roman's name to the ballot where it should be, we would have to call it a Mulligan. Because of that court ruling, it can't be done the simple way. Of course, the EC doesn't want to to restart the election. And they're not going to because it wasn't their fault. Unless Roman can get a court order, he will remain out in the cold.
 
Clearly, this entire election is a sham that has made a laughing stock of the Constitution and Legal Code.

See: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8093775&t=7053327

The decision is nebulous and self-contradictory and clearly supports Fiat rule through unwritten rules that are neither detailed nor published.


And, as such, if you take a gander at the court section of the forum, I have filed for review of the decision and an enjoinment of the current election on clear technical bases.

Clearly, the integrity of our Constitution, Legal Code and Elections Process has been made a sham of by the court's decision.

Clearly it seems that if voting made a difference, voting would be promptly be declared illegal by The Election Commission and The Court.



Wake up people, your Constitution and Legal Code has been trashed and effectively abolished by the Court upholding a unwritten Fiat 'Rules' that over-ride everything.
 
You are fairly slow coming to that conclusion. I have been arguing this for over a year now.

Welcome to the world of TNP.
 
flemingovia:
You are fairly slow coming to that conclusion. I have been arguing this for over a year now.

Welcome to the world of TNP.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know. I let my faith in this Constitution and Legal code blind me to the fact that no one gives a damn about either anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top